Hi all. . . I'm new here, but I've been pointed towards this site many times in the past to settle questions about audio -- especially about digital compression.

So anyhow. . . I got me a turntable!

What prompted me to get it was a series of records that National Geographic published back in the 70s and which never were released on CD. They were high production quality stuff: gatefold, elaborate liner notes, etc. It was supposed to be a history of American music -- an early example of edu-tainment, you might say. I fondly remembered some of these from when I was little, and I thought it would be cool to collect the LPs (thanks to the modern miracle of eBay) and digitize them, and put them in my iTunes library. QED, right?

I first thought I'd get one of those cheap USB turntables, but then I did a little research and found out they were basically crummy, so of course I wanted a better one. . . and one thing led to another. I ended up with a Technics SL-D2 with a Shure M95ED cartridge, which seems to be working pretty well so far. It's been a long time since I had a turntable, and this is way better than any I had before.

So, I dug out some other old LPs. One that particularly pleases me is Blue Oyster Cult's The Revolution By Night. It sounds way better than the CD. The CD is one of those early releases that were. . . messed up. I don't know exactly what the explanation is, but it seems around 1984-86 there were a fair number of CDs that came out sounding thin, harsh and bright. I suspect it had something to do with the mad rush to convert whole back catalogs ASAP while engineers were still getting used to the new format and equipment.

Adding insult to injury, the CD was a "budget" release with the (excellent IMHO) cover art shrunk to about cassette size and surrounded with a useless border proclaiming what a bargain it was. The sleeve art was jettisoned entirely. Gee thanks, CBS Records!

I've tinkered with the CD rip before, applying equalization -- greatly reducing the higher frequencies -- and re-normalizing it, and I was able to make the CD sound a lot better. Even so, apparently I never totally figured it out, because the LP still sounds better to me.

At the end of this long story, I'm left wondering. . . Can anybody suggest other LPs that are notably better than their CD release? I mean examples where the CD was messed up in some way, whether it was equalization or over-compression, clipping, whatever, while the LP was OK. Bonus points could be awarded if the LP has great cover art, gatefold art, etc!

You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural. That "4dB of peak limiting" on the new releases that no one was supposed to notice may be audible after all.

Problem is, to me, the question becomes "which CD releases are so compromised that the vinyl sounds better". That's not a reason to buy a turntable. That's a reason to buy a CD (so you've paid the artist), and then find a decent needle drop to listen to instead. There may be other ways of paying the artist.

You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.

To whom?

One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).

You could have listed most of the Beatles albums as obvious examples, until they remastered them.

TBH, I think you still can claim the original vinyl sounds better. There was a nice website comparing every release of most of The Beatles albums (various LP pressings, all CD issues), but I can't find it now. Original UK stereo vinyl still beat the new remaster because it sounded more natural.

To whom?

Me I suppose I should ABX it - but the faults of vinyl are clearly audible on many of those samples, as well the advantages of a given release - so it's a little different to consider only the advantages in a blind test when the faults un-blind the testing.

QUOTE

One should consider, too, that the master tapes were new when the original UK vinyl was cut. They're ~40 yrs old now (except for the remixed ones, of course, which are ~20 yrs old) . So it's not quite apples to apples (no pun intended).

Of course. I don't believe in voodoo. There are plenty of good real explanations for the differences, which are plainly audible (and IMO+E completely unchanged) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16.

Yes, sorry if that was unclear - I was talking about audible changes between LP and commercial CD that are completely unchanged (IMO) when the LP is digitised at 44.1/16. So vinyl vs commercial CD is (to my ears) the same as vinyl-copied-onto-CD vs commercial CD.

I can't hear a different between vinyl vs vinyl-copied-onto-CD.

There are obvious differences in sighted testing if all the equipment is visible in the same room as the listener (you can see the record spinning around and hear the sound of the needle in the groove without amplification) - but there's no change in the sound coming from the speakers that I can detect. I wouldn't say I've tested "properly", but I heard nothing in the tests that I carried out at home to make me want to test "properly".

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

EDIT: I think many people who copy LPs onto CDs, even some with quite esoteric equipment, will tell you the same thing.

+1

My needle-drops use a Linn LP12/Lingo/Ittok/Karma, a Naim preamp, and an M-Audio AP2496 soundcard. Perhaps not "esoteric", but certainly "reasonably high-end". Recordings made at 16/44.1 and subsequently played through a pair of ATC SCM100A monitors are sonically indistinguishable from the original LPs.

Another +1 with the caveat that CD copies can sound better if clicks etc have been removed. My set up is not esoteric either. It's a mix of vintage, modern and homemade (Thorens TD124/Rega RB300/Denon DL304 into a homemade phono stage and a Terratech EWX 24/96 card)

As for LPs that actually sound better - I've not heard CD releases of "Crime Of The Century" (Supertramp), "Bridge Of Sighs" (Robin Trower) or "The Celts" (Enya) and one or two others that sound as good as my vinyl copies. However, as others have said or implied I don't think the vinyl is necessarily superior it's just that the CD masterings differ in some ways and so the end result is different to what I'm used to hearing.